Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Omnibus]

There's no consensus in Science. Scientific truth isn't decided by voting, especially by incompetents voting. Science is a totalitarian system where the truth is a dictator. Hard Science we're talking about, not Social Sciences where anything goes and "truth" there is indeed a consensual category, allowing for many opposing concepts about a social phenomenon to be equally valid in order to avoid social unrest.

[shruggedatlas]

Not at all. The incompetent remarks by some don't make anything controversial no matter how impudently or subtly they push it. Absolutely not. Science is un-dented by incompetence. Otherwise the world will be in a much greater mess than it is now.

More accurately, your self-assurance is undented.  I will give you this - you do not care one bit what others think.  But even you must realize that when you say "firmly established", you mean firmly established for you and a handful others, but not really in the rest of the scientific community or even very many people in this forum.

Overall, I want to make one last point about this.  Intentially or unintentionally, the SMOT analysis you champion is just like the numerous frustrating overunity claims out there, like those made by Steorn, Newman, and countless others through history.  They refuse to build a self-sustaining device, but what they do is say, "Well, here is energy input, and here is the energy output.  When we calculate the two in this manner, see how the output is more?  Due to technical issues, soon to be overcome, we cannot feed the output into the input, but based on the calculations, it is clearly overunity." 

Well, why not just pass the only test that matters - have a self-sustaining device?  It would just put an end to all this controversy.  It would show up mainstream science once and for all.  Never happens though.

[NerzhDishual]

Hi people,

Just the 2cents of an unfortunate 'OU' handyman ...
Actually, I have also built my own xpenzif's magnet motor replication.
OK:
The screws gluing is crude.
The rotor is not so well balanced.
I'm far from a machinist. 
However:
The ball bearing comes from a recovery of a (professional) Meteorological drifting buoy wind speed sensor and is very efficient.

Guess what : it (unfortunately) does not work (at all)!

Of course, you can blame the shabby craftsmanship (that's what I do).
But I do not feel any hope having this @#& rotor moving.
I mean : with a mere single small magnet glued on another (slightly leaning) drum-like rotor, an initial small impulse, a quick tuning, I can get this rotor making 2 or 3 revolutions.
That Ain't 'OU'! Of course! But it is turning. Paltry consolation.

So? Is the xpenzif's motor faked?

Just a (twisted) idea:
Why not tyring to 'smart' deceit/false this very motor with a fan, an hair drier, a minuscule tamed hamster or whatever you want?.

That's my next project.

Remember: the (in)famous Mike's window Motor was also made self running on a mere capacitor (and an hidden 9 volts bat. ).

My window motor is also running very well with a small bat.

Best   

[rice]

i also wish it was true.  bud sadly this device does not work.  most of us have proved this to ourselves.  why not just put an end to it and stop arguing,  it does not work

[Omnibus]

Not at all. The incompetent remarks by some don't make anything controversial no matter how impudently or subtly they push it. Absolutely not. Science is un-dented by incompetence. Otherwise the world will be in a much greater mess than it is now.

More accurately, your self-assurance is undented.  I will give you this - you do not care one bit what others think.  But even you must realize that when you say "firmly established", you mean firmly established for you and a handful others, but not really in the rest of the scientific community or even very many people in this forum.

Overall, I want to make one last point about this.  Intentially or unintentionally, the SMOT analysis you champion is just like the numerous frustrating overunity claims out there, like those made by Steorn, Newman, and countless others through history.  They refuse to build a self-sustaining device, but what they do is say, "Well, here is energy input, and here is the energy output.  When we calculate the two in this manner, see how the output is more?  Due to technical issues, soon to be overcome, we cannot feed the output into the input, but based on the calculations, it is clearly overunity." 

Well, why not just pass the only test that matters - have a self-sustaining device?  It would just put an end to all this controversy.  It would show up mainstream science once and for all.  Never happens though.

On the contrary, I do care very much what others say. Whenever it's crap, however, (and this is most of the time) I say so. One mustn't be polite with intruders in Science, trying to turn it into mockery and playground of stupidity.

Also, my analysis of SMOT absolutely must not be compared to the unsubstantiated claims of Steorn, Newman and countless others in history because my analysis is scientifically rigorous and sound. Their claims are not. Big difference. By the way, for my analysis to be scientifically sound it is absolutely not necessary to have a self-sustaining device. You should understand this one and for all. I've been repeating it over and over but who to listen.